"I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this."

--Charles H. Spurgeon

"To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."

--Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Supersessionism is the view that the New Testament Church supersedes, replaces, or fulfills the nation Israels place and role in the plan of God. I am convinced that supersessionism / replacement theology is an unbiblical doctrine that violates clear statements in both the Old and New testaments that teach and affirm a national salvation and restoration of Israel. Below are twelve reasons why supersessionism violates the biblical witness:

1. The Old Testament explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation Israel.

a. Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.

b. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.

c. Ezekiel 3637 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.

d. Amos 9:11-15

e. Zephaniah 3:14-20

f. Zechariah 1214

g. NOTE 1: Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israels restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel.

h. NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israels restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: "Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution."

2. The Old Testament explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation Israel (see Jer. 31:35-37).

"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:35-37).

Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can know that the nation Israel still has a place in Gods plan.

3. The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a salvation and restoration of Israel.

a. Matthew 19:28 -- Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel.

According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel."

b. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35-- Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, "In Matthews perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of Gods relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise."

c. Luke 21:24-- Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, "Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem."

d. Luke 22:30-- Apostles to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.

e. Acts 1:3-7-- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: "Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity."

f. Acts 3:19-21 -- Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.

g. Romans 11:26-27-- Salvation of "all Israel" will occur in accordance with the New Covenant promises given to Israel in the Old Testament.

i. C.E.B. Cranfield: "It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly-perhaps quite unconsciously-believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters [Rom. 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people."

ii. Jonathan Edwards: "Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11."

iii. In his comments on Rom 11:2627, Ernst Käsemann rightly states that "Christianity is already living in the new covenant" while "Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia."

4. The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are still the possession of Israel even during this church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief (see Romans 9:3b-4).

"my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Rom. 9:3b-4).

5. The New Testament indicates that God is faithful to Israel because of His promises to the patriarchs of Israel (Romans 11:28).

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom.11:28).

6. The New Testament indicates that Israels election/calling is irrevocable (Romans 11:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:6-8).

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).

a. Jürgen Moltmann: "There can be no question of Gods having finally rejected the people of his choicehe would then have to reject his own election (11.29)and of his then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israels promises remain Israels promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become like all the nations."

b. Wolfhart Pannenberg: "How could Christians be certain of their own comparatively new membership in the circle of Gods elect if God for his part did not remain faithful to his election in spite of Israels unbelief? This is the apostles point when he advocates the inviolability of the election of the Jewish people (11:29; cf. 9:6). He has in mind also Christian assurance of election."

c. The more one believes in the sovereignty of God especially as it relates to election, the more one should be committed to a salvation/restoration of Israel based on Gods election of this people.

7. The New Testament never uses the term "Israel" for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, the church is never called "Israel."

a. The title "Israel" is used seventy-three times and always refers to ethnic Jews: The vast majority refer to national, ethnic Israel. A few refer specifically to Jewish believers who are ethnic Jews.

b. The New Testament still consistently refers to national Israel as "Israel" even after the establishment of the church (Acts 3:12; 4:10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28).

c. The book of Acts maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. In Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. "Israel" is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.

8. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament identifies the church as "Israel."

a. Romans 9:6  Believing Jews are those who are the true spiritual Israel. As William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam state: "But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel."

b. Galatians 6:16  Paul is referring to Christian Jews in his reference to the "Israel of God." Paul scolded the Judaizers who said circumcision was necessary for salvation, but he acknowledges those Jews in Galatia who had not followed the Judaizers in their error. These Christian Jews are the true "Israel of God." Ronald E. Diprose: "Galatians 6:16 is insufficient grounds on which to base an innovative theological concept such as understanding the Church to be the new and/or true Israel."

c. Romans 11:26  There is very little chance that "Israel" here refers to the church, something even many supersessionists acknowledge. Like the other ten references to "Israel" in Romans 911, Israel in 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel.

9. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament reinterprets or alters the original OT prophecies in regard to Israel. The alleged "NT Priority" approach of Supersessionism is really structural supersessionisma hermeneutic that does not allow the OT passages to speak to the issues they address.

a. How can the NT reinterpret or alter the OT expectation for Israel when the NT actually reaffirms the OT expectation? (see point #3 above).

b. Hebrews 8:8-13 and Jeremiah 31:

i. The Old Testament never indicated that the New Covenant would only be for the nation Israel. Isaiah uses the New Covenant concept of "sprinkling" in regard to salvation in Isaiah 52:15.

ii. Paul quotes New Covenant passages in Romans 11:27 to show that the nation Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:26). Thus, even after the church began Paul sees Israel as still related to the New Covenant.

iii. The purpose of Hebrews 8 is not to address the issue of who is and is not the people of God. Hebrews 8 is directly addressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant, not whether the church is now the true Israel.

iv. Only the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13. If the New Covenant were being fulfilled in its entirety we should expect the physical blessings of the New Covenant to be mentioned as being fulfilled with the church. The New Testament never links the church with the physical blessings of the New Covenant.

v. It is best to conclude that the church is participating in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant while the full eschatological fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place with Israel in the millennium.

c. Acts 15:13-18 and Amos 9:11-15

i. The main point of the quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 is to show that Gentiles becoming the people of God is consistent with or agrees with what the OT prophets like Amos predicted. It is not discussing the complete fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom or calling the church Israel.

ii. Discussion of Israels place in the plan of God is not even the focus of Acts 15.

iii. Acts 15 says "agree" not "fulfill."

iv. William D. Barrick: "Note, first of all, that James never says that Amos 9 is fulfilled. Secondly, James reasoning is that the Gospel should continue to go out to the Gentiles because God included them in his redemptive plan according to Amos 9. Amos 9 mentions Gentiles as recipients of Gods kingdom blessings, so how could the early church ever take action to exclude them?"

10. Supersessionists have failed to show that unity between Jews and Gentiles in the church rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel.

a. Ephesians 2:1122 shows that Gentiles who used to be far from God have now been brought near God because of Christ. Thus, the soteriological status of believing Gentiles has changed. They now share with Israel in Israels covenants and promises but they do not become Israel.

b. Believing Gentiles cannot be incorporated into Israel because Paul says they are now part of a new structurethe new man.

c. Howard Taylor: "Superficial logic has continued to argue that there is no more uniqueness for the Jew and physical Israel. Since it is said Christ has broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile [Eph. 2:1118], Israels election is finished. But this is not the logic of the New Testament. Although there is only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the New Testament teaches that the Jewish people do still have a unique place in the historical working out of Gods redemption of the world in Christ.

d. Rom 11:1724 stresses that Gentiles are now related to the promises of God. Thus, there is a soteriological unity between believing Jews and Gentiles. But it does not indicate that the church is now the true Israel. There is a difference between saying that Gentiles participate with Israel in Israels covenants and claiming that believing Gentiles become Israel. Gentiles are partakers of the covenants not takerovers. This passage does not rule out a future role for national Israel or indicate that the church is now Israel.

11. Israelite language applied to believing Gentiles does not mean the church is Israel.

a. 1 Peter 2:910 and Romans 9:24-26  Yes, language used of Israel in the Old Testament is used of believing Gentiles in the New Testament. But similarity with Israel does not mean identification with Israel. There are occasions in Scripture when "Israel" imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isa 19:2425, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called "my people." Yet, the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside "Israel my inheritance." So, even in the Old Testament it was predicted that non-Israelites would someday carry some of the titles of Israel without becoming identified as Israel.

b. J. Ramsey Michaels says, "Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community."

c. Galatians 3:7, 29 The New Testament teaches that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham but this does not mean that believing Gentiles are Israel. The concept of "seed of Abraham" is used in several different ways in the New Testament. First, it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham. Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Third, it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:29). John Feinberg states, "no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses." Thus, the application of the titles "sons of Abraham" or "seed of Abraham" to believing Gentiles does not mean that believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews or part of Israel.

d. Galatians 3:7-8 links the Gentiles being "sons of Abraham" with the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that predicted that "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."

12. New Testament prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that Gods plan for Israel is alive.

a. Revelation 7:4-8  all the tribes of Israel are mentioned.

b. Matthew 24:15ff.

i. The abomination of desolation is clearly related to the Jewish temple.

ii. Jesus tells the residence of Israel what to do in the Tribulation Period.

c. Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

d. If the church is now Israel why do NT prophecies refer to ethnic Israel?

In conclusion, Ronald Diprose is right when he states that in order for supersessionism to qualify as a biblical doctrine there needs to be "positively, passages which clearly teach it and negatively, no passages which actually exclude it." On both counts, supersessionism fails. The New Testament does not call the church "Israel," and nowhere does the New Testament state that the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God. Various texts such as Matt 19:28; 23:3739; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel. Thus, we agree with Kaiser when he says, "To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."

Okay, so you went ahead and denied the Scripture. Since God doesn't make assumptions, but states facts, you denied the Scripture you were given. I'm not surprised; the only way your "doctrine" works is to deny Scripture.

God states another fact when He says

Thus says the Lord: I will return to Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, the Mountain of the Lord of hosts, the Holy Mountain. (Zechariah 8:3)

and

Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst, says the Lord.

Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. And the Lord will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. (Zechariah 2:10-12)

Those aren't assumptions either, they are facts, and they will happen.

Christs throne is heavenly. (Rev.3:21)

Until He returns to earth with His previously raptured Bride at the end of the Tribulation:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [d]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [e]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:11-16)

So we know from God that Jesus will return to earth, at the end of the Tribulation, with His Bride, and will begin His Millennial Kingdom. No assumptions there, just simple facts.

As are the thrones of those king/priests who would rule over the earth. (Rev. 5:10)

Yep, the Scripture does say that Jesus will have a literal, earthly kingdom and His Bride will rule that kingdom with Him.

The resurrected Jesus acts as a high priest and sits at he right hand of God. (Heb. 8:1, 10:12)

Jesus is at the right hand of God until He returns for His Kingdom:

The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.

So we know that Jesus will sit at the right hand of God until His enemies are defeated at Armageddon and He returns to earth for His Millennial Kingdom.

Paul was going to be one of those heavenly kings to rule over the earth in a heavenly kingdom.

That's odd. When I look at Galatians 3:26, I see "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.".

Philippians 3:20 tells those who know Christ as Savior that our home is in Heaven as opposed to this earth. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, Philippians 3:20 does not negate the scores of Biblical passages that talk about Jesus Christ's literal, earthly one-thousand-year kingdom on earth.

51
posted on 05/02/2012 3:02:10 PM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

Over and over again Christ used the term “kingdom of the heavens” to describe his rule in the book of Matthew. Still many could get beyond the idea of A Messiah ruling from the city of Jerusalem.

This was a point Paul argued to the Hebrews. The Mount Zion that Christ was to rule from was the the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. (Heb. 12:22)

You quoted Rev. 19, surely you noticed that Christ and fellow judges wage war from heaven. “14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses”

Your arguments that Christ would return to the city of Jerusalem (and what? leave the king/priests behind?) simply isn't supported in the Scriptures.

53
posted on 05/02/2012 6:03:05 PM PDT
by count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

I believe the vehicle God uses to convert the Jews is the Tribulation.

Actually, I think it happens BEFORE that. Perhaps the Battle of Gog/Magog... The Temple is rebuilt in Holiness... the whole of Jerusalem is sanctified - The bells on the horses and the jugs for the water have the name of YHWH upon them... All of this, according to the Prophets, happens when the Temple is rebuilt... And the Temple IS THERE for Yeshua to enter into through the Eastern Gate after His foot touches down on the mount of olives!

And if that is so, That allows a great portion of Judah to participate in the rapture - How can YHWH allow a part of Yeshua's Bride to ride the lightning? It seems it will be the Left Behind of both Christian and Jew (by then ONE THING) that will be the Tribulation Saints...

I know that is weird, but it works... and it puts the Rapture mid-trib... living through the time of Jacob's Trouble, enduring the Antichrist, but not the wrath of YHWH. All the saints are with Yeshua when He comes to deliver that, and establish the throne of David!

55
posted on 05/02/2012 6:53:10 PM PDT
by roamer_1
(Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)

Over and over again Christ used the term kingdom of the heavens to describe his rule in the book of Matthew. Still many could get beyond the idea of A Messiah ruling from the city of Jerusalem.

God's kingdom at present is spiritual through those who know Him as Savior. But this conndition will end soon and Scripture is more than clear that there will be a literal, physical return of Christ to earth and He will set up a literal, physical one-thousand year kingdom on this earth.

And it doesn't matter how many times those who cling to man-made, false doctrines scream and wail and moan and cry about it and deny the Word of God. There will be a literal, physical, one-thousand year kingdom of Jesus Christ on this earth. He said He will have that kingdom on this earth, and it will happen.

Whether you like it or not. You have been given the Scriptures which proves that this will happen and the fact that you choose to discard and reject those Scriptures could not be more meaningless.

You quoted Rev. 19, surely you noticed that Christ and fellow judges wage war from heaven.

The book of Revelation is the accounting of a vision that the apostle John was given by Jesus Christ. Revelation 19 tells us about Christ's return to earth, with His Bride (And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.) at which time, when He gets to earth, He conducts war. This is the time when He puts an end to the Armageddon campaign, conducts the judgments of those unsaved who survived the Tribulation, and sets up His kingdom.

Revelation 19 says nothing about war being waged from Heaven.

Your arguments that Christ would return to the city of Jerusalem (and what? leave the king/priests behind?) simply isn't supported in the Scriptures.

You were given the Scriptures that state that Jesus Christ will rule a literal, physical, earthly kingdom from Jerusalem. If you don't understand those Scriptures, that's a spiritual problem; if you reject and deny those Scriptures, that's also a spiritual problem. The fact that you either don't understand what the passages I provided you say or you deliberately deny them is no one's problem but yours.

Here's some more Scripture you probably won't like:

From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do. (Isaiah 46:11)

So, when God says in Scripture that He is going to do something, He will do it, despite the most desperate wishes of those who don't like what He plans to do and despite their most desperate attempts to deny those Scriptures out of existence. There will be a Millennial Kingdom on this earth and Jesus will rule that kingdom from Jerusalem and there isn't a person alive who can stop that from happening.

We know that when He was resurrected, and remained with the disciples for a time, He could be touched, He ate, He was considered by those around Him to be human.

We know that He ascended into Heaven in that exact form.

Is there any Scripture that tells us that He somehow changed when He got to Heaven? I don't know of any.

So we can probably safely know that He will return in the same "form" He left.

God gives us the account of what was said when Christ ascended:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, Which, He said, you heard of from Me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. (Acts 1:1-5)

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11They also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven. (Acts 1:9-11)

So based on what God's inerrant Scripture says, and without adding anything to it or taking anything away from it, I think we can know that Jesus won't have to "take up human form". I think we can know that He will be the same when He returns as He was when He ascended.

58
posted on 05/03/2012 5:31:58 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

I know that is weird, but it works... and it puts the Rapture mid-trib... living through the time of Jacob's Trouble, enduring the Antichrist, but not the wrath of YHWH. All the saints are with Yeshua when He comes to deliver that, and establish the throne of David!

I have to go back and do some reading to respond to the rest of your post. I still believe the conversion of Israel will occur at His glorious return, but I'll try and give that some thought.

I think the mid trib rapture is not as likely in part because if the church is still present on the Earth it would negate the impact of the 144,000 witnesses and the outcry about prophesy being fulfilled would open peoples eyes.

Give me the indication in the texts that when God tells us that His Bride will return with Him on white horses we are not to take that literally.

I'll need the Scripture that you have that tells you that God doesn't mean that literally.

As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus' mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

Hebrews 4:12 tells us:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

So we know from Scripture that a "sword" refers to the word of God when it is used by God allegorically. Scripture interprets Scripture if one is willing to look and learn.

Romans 2:16 says:

"on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

We now have our answer. The word "sword", as used as a symbol by God in the Book of Revelation and pictured as coming from the mouth of Jesus, refers to His Word, with which He will judge the nations.

And we know from Scripture that Christ will literally return, will literally bring His Bride with Him, and will literally judge those who remain alive at the end of the Tribulation. And He will do with with the "sword", or the Scriptures. Men will be judged according to what is contained in the Word of God, which He tells us He values above His own name.

No mystery there whatsoever.

63
posted on 05/03/2012 8:55:05 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

I believe the vehicle God uses to convert the Jews is the Tribulation.

Actually, I think it happens BEFORE that. Perhaps the Battle of Gog/Magog.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Can you think of any place where judgment led to repentance? I dont believe that tribulation or war will bring the conversion of Israel. If we consider the prophetic character of history in scripture, perhaps we should be looking for an event like Joseph reveling himself to his brothers. The details argue against a mid-tribulation rapture.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

“Give me the indication in the texts that when God tells us that His Bride will return with Him on white horses we are not to take that literally. I'll need the Scripture that you have that tells you that God doesn't mean that literally.

As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus’ mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:....”

Why would you consider the horses (and stables for them and maybe someone to clean the stables...all this in heaven!) literal but that sword not?

You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.

65
posted on 05/03/2012 9:29:00 AM PDT
by count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

Why would you consider the horses (and stables for them and maybe someone to clean the stables...all this in heaven!) literal but that sword not?

What would make you believe that Jesus would have a literal sword coming out of His mouth? And what on earth makes you think anything needs to be cleaned in Heaven? Where, if at all, did you get your Bible instruction?

You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.

Actually, you expressed doubt about part of the Word of God and it is up to you to prove that your doubt is well-founded. The fact that I shot down that doubt and proved, once again, that the Scripture as God wrote it is inerrant and absolutely true and proved your doubt to be completely without merit puts no obligation on me at all.

If you want to show that God's word has contradictions and errors and cannot be trusted, it's up to you to prove your point.

I already proved mine.

66
posted on 05/03/2012 9:40:17 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

I think the mid trib rapture is not as likely in part because if the church is still present on the Earth it would negate the impact of the 144,000 witnesses and the outcry about prophesy being fulfilled would open peoples eyes.

Let me assure you that we are probably pretty close in that - I see the 'tribulation' lasting much longer than the common dispensational idea of seven years - I do see the same final seven years in pretty much the same light - and would tend to assume that the Church will be raptured right at that point (close to the start of those seven years).

I think the Church is on the earth through the end of the Trumpets (at the sound of the 7th Trump) - and that is a fairly extended period of time - which technically puts me in a mid-trib position according to common interpretation, even though the reason for that is because I place the trumpets as occurring earlier, and over a much longer period.

And the antichrist seems to be active longer than those final seven years, because he is already in his power by the time of the 7-year covenant with Israel (else he would not be in a position to make such a covenant)... which means there has already been a whole lot of shaking going on by then. I don't think most dispensationalists allow enough 'pre-game' time.... the whole thing is too compressed...

And I also disagree with the general tone that the Church will leave unscathed - History would prove otherwise - It would seem to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for martyrdom.

As to the 144000, That is PRECISELY the point - to open people's eyes... and there are MANY church-type folks who are currently blind as bats, perhaps myself included.

67
posted on 05/03/2012 9:41:11 AM PDT
by roamer_1
(Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)

If youre going to say the horses are literal then by what means do you determine that another detail isnt? So why should one be literal and the other not.

Find all the descriptions of white horses as God uses them in Scripture and list them. Then tell me how the descriptions listed differ from how the words are used in Revelation 19.

If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it.

Like another poster said, and like I said in a previous post, when you come to Scripture already deceived, with a method of interpreting the Bible that is wrong, you will not understand the correct way when it is shown to you. If you don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling you from accepting Christ as Savior, you will never understand Scripture and will always misunderstand and, even when proven wrong, cling to your erroneous interpretations.

That is why you are simply mystified as to how the book of Revelation can have both literal images and symbolic images and that is why you don't know to search the Scriptures for what the symbols mean.

Horses have digestive tracts, they eat and defecate, and unless you are going say these dont then heaven is going to get quite messy. That is where confusing the literal with the symbolic leads.

You're the only one who is confused. I'm not confused at all and I found the meaning of "sword" in Scripture so I know what Jesus is talking about in Revelation when He says that He will come with a "sword" coming out of His mouth.

The confusion comes from not knowing Christ as Savior and not having the Holy Spirit to open up Scripture to you and making it understandable and from depending on the explanations of men who are just as lost and in the dark as you are.

And you obviously have never read Jesus' words on Heaven or you never would have made such asinine statements about it. More darkness and spiritual blindness.

I did not express doubt about Gods word, only your what you say it indicates.

Your exact post:

And bring literal white horses with him? And literally have a sword protruding from his mouth?

People who don't question the validity of something don't bring it up and don't ask about it. Why would you need confirmation on whether Jesus will bring "literal white horses with Him" when He said He will? Why would you need to ask about "literally have a sword protruding from His mouth" when Scripture tells you exactly what a "sword" is when it is used symbolically in Scripture? If you don't doubt it, why did you question the truth of it? And why do you need an explanation from me if you're so sure that that part of Scripture is not really true?

69
posted on 05/03/2012 10:31:19 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

"If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it."

Unlike much of Scripture which is descriptive, we know that the words spoken by Jesus are transformative, meaning they carry the power of Creation within them so they must be something greater than literal. Jesus words carry the power to change reality. When Jesus said; "Tabitha, get up. She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; Lazarus, come out! it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were.

Why then can you reject His words when He said; "This is my body"?

70
posted on 05/03/2012 11:10:59 AM PDT
by Natural Law
(For God so loved the world that He did not send a book.)

"If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it."

Unlike much of Scripture which is descriptive, we know that the words spoken by Jesus are transformative, meaning they carry the power of Creation within them so they must be something greater than literal. Jesus words carry the power to change reality. When Jesus said; "Tabitha, get up. She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; Lazarus, come out! it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were.

Why then can you reject His words when He said; "This is my body"?

71
posted on 05/03/2012 11:11:25 AM PDT
by Natural Law
(For God so loved the world that He did not send a book.)

Then there is the opposite view that when the Bible says “Zion” it means “Waco Texas” and where it says “Jewish” it means “Caucasian”, and if your name is Vernon Howell - you need to be named “David Koresh”.

Which view seems more reality based?

72
posted on 05/03/2012 11:16:53 AM PDT
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.

52"Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.

"59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum".

"60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said,  This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it? 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.

So after the Jews heard Him say that He is the "bread of life" and that anyone who "eats of this bread" will have eternal life and after He tells them that "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.", and after they became angry, we see in verse 63 that He tells them that the words He had just spoken to them were spiritual.

So, like I said, Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interprets itself. We know that the communion is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus because He tells us Himself that those words are "spiritual".

That isn't "rejecting" His words, it is putting them in the context that He told us to put them in.

73
posted on 05/03/2012 11:29:06 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

I went above and beyond in explaining to you what you wanted to know. The fact that you don't like what you were told and you choose to reject and deny the Scriptures that state that God has future plans for the Jews and the Scriptures that detail Christ's literal return to earth is not my problem.

If you want to take the truth I gave you as insults go right ahead. Maybe one day you'll actually think about the fact that when you reject and deny Scripture, you are rejecting and denying Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I said,  He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:14-18)

Jesus Christ is known as "the Word of God". To deny any part of Scripture is to deny Him.

Something to think about.

75
posted on 05/03/2012 11:42:41 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

"So, like I said, Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interprets itself. We know that the communion is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus because He tells us Himself that those words are "spiritual"."

The fact that we disagree and that there are over 30,000 denominations in Christendom, differentiated by one degree or another, on the interpretation of Scripture is all the evidence one needs to reject that hypothesis.

If you go to that very revelation in John 6 you referenced Jesus had an opportunity to say that He was speaking figuratively or symbolically, like He did when He explained being Born again from above to Nicodemus, but He didn't. He reiterated the Real Presence on many occasions, most notably when He taught us how to pray. He called the "daily bread" Epiousios, a word found nowhere else in Greek literature, which is translated as supersubstantial bread and which the Early Church Fathers unanimously referred to the Eucharist. Jesus used a very emphatic means to reveal this to us. He told us what He was going to tell us. He then told us. He then told us again, and again, and again. It is only when you artificially construct the context to presume that the Eucharist cannot be the Real Presence or that Jesus' words cannot be transformative that your position appears sound.

So I will repeat my question in slightly different words, how can you on your own authority accept or reject the Real Presence?

76
posted on 05/03/2012 11:53:41 AM PDT
by Natural Law
(For God so loved the world that He did not send a book.)

Natural Law, you are Catholic and while we are not going to agree on doctrine and Biblical matters, I have no interest in arguing with you.

I take the Scriptures as the final authority on any subject it covers, and when Jesus says that His description of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" are spiritual and not literal, then I'm going to take that as the final word on the matter even if there are men who don't like that and don't agree with it.

This thread is about replacement theology, and believing God when He says that He is not finished with Israel, and I will say again, I'm not interested in getting into a protracted argument that will accomplish nothing.

God bless you, Natural Law.

77
posted on 05/03/2012 12:01:32 PM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

"Natural Law, you are Catholic and while we are not going to agree on doctrine and Biblical matters, I have no interest in arguing with you."

I am not trying to get into a discussion or debate on Catholic versus Protestant doctrine. I brought up the Real Presence as an example specifically because we disagree on it.

My question goes to the authority of your interpretation, or more specifically, the lack thereof. How is it that you claim that your interpretation, and not that of a fellow Protestant is correct except upon your own authority and how is it that when a finite human mind fails to fully understand the infinite the presumption is that it is the infinite that must bend?

I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of your love of Jesus. I simply want to better understand your point of view. Peace be with you.

78
posted on 05/03/2012 12:36:48 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(For God so loved the world that He did not send a book.)

My issue was with the denial of Scripture which leaves no doubt that God is not finished with his covenant, chosen people or His covenant, chosen nation and has plans for them for the future which He has pretty emphatically spelled out in His Word.

There is no Scriptural basis for claiming that the Church has replaced Israel, and none was offered by those who make that claim.

As for interpretations, I was able to produce Scripture which provided it's own "interpretation" of the passages in question. I know that, for some, that is not sufficient, but it is for me and I feel entirely secure in using Christ's own words to explain what He said.

It is precisely because we disagree that I'd rather not begin a discussion. It will come to nothing, and these kinds of things basically never turn out for good.

I don't doubt your love for Jesus either, Natural Law, and I pray that God will always bless you and your family.

79
posted on 05/03/2012 12:50:00 PM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

You attempted to use a response I made to an article as some "evidence" that I believe that there is more than one way to salvation.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. The message changes, the gospel changes. It's disturbing that a Christian would even think this.

I didn't expect you to be able to refute the article for many reasons, first of which is the fact that you would be required to deal with Scripture that you have had to discard and deny to make your "doctrines" work.

Scriptures like Galatians 3:29?

Why should I try? I'll just get hissed at.

81
posted on 05/03/2012 7:21:10 PM PDT
by Lee N. Field
("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)

God's family of believing Jews grew into all those who believe the Messiah came and conquered death and is God Himself. --Dr. E

In the church age we call our brothers and sisters Christians.

However, why partially blind Israel and is this blinding permanent? We both read our Bibles regularly and have read Romans 11 closely.

The partial hardening of Israel according to the flesh is not permanent. Many will, in the end, in the gracious will of God, be regenerated, come to faith, and join the rest of God's people in the church. They will be Christian.

Have you not read the scriptures, where it says "It is those who are of faith who are children of Abraham.", and "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" ?

83
posted on 05/03/2012 7:37:50 PM PDT
by Lee N. Field
("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)

Matthew 25: 39-46 tells us who will get into Heaven in the ordinary course of events when Jesus Christ separates the Sheep from the Goats.

The good-thief on the Cross also tells us that it is possible to have an appeal directly to Jesus Christ for Mercy just before death. This is a dangerous approach to salvation as the bad-thief tells us that in our final sufferings it is also possible to curse God & die.

Follow the advice of Jesus Christ in Matthew 25 = The Parable of the Ten Virgins, The Parable of the Talents & The Judgment of Nations.

We should all remember, Jesus Christ is looking for >doers of the Word & not just a lot of talk.

84
posted on 05/03/2012 8:31:29 PM PDT
by gghd
(A Pro-life Palinista & a member of the NRA)

When the first Israelite king was chosen it was because the people wanted a king they could see and that would lead them in battle. National pride was involved. But they already had a king, Jehovah, and by their demand the Israelites were rejecting Him.

Now the same error is being repeated, Christ has been appointed as heavenly king but now the added demand is that Christ leave his heavenly throne, take up flesh again and ride into Jerusalem.

Gal. 3:29? Those Scriptures are hard to read with the eyes pointed downward instead of heavenward.

86
posted on 05/04/2012 6:19:36 AM PDT
by count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

—I think they still are Gods chosen people, even if they do not follow God today. —

I do too, and one needs only see the scripture about the sealing of the 144,000 do understand that position. However, the word “chosen” is an interesting one. Kinda like the word “blessed” in regards to Mary.

Was she chosen to be the mother of Jesus because she was blessed, or was she blessed because she was chosen?

Same thing here. If you pick a donut out of a stack of donuts, it becomes your “chosen” donut. Does that mean it had some special quality that caused you do chose it, or does it simply mean that it is the one you chose, for whatever reason, and is, therefore, your “chosen” donut.

Was Israel chosen because they were special, or are they special because they are the ones He chose?

[roamer_1:] Actually, I think it happens BEFORE that. Perhaps the Battle of Gog/Magog.

Can you think of any place where judgment led to repentance? I dont believe that tribulation or war will bring the conversion of Israel.

It isn't the war itself - It is how they are saved from it. The prophets tell the story of a time when Israel will be overrun by a mighty force, and it will look like there is no hope, but they will be saved out of it miraculously. The Bible hints that this miracle will turn Israel away from its secular self, and back to YHWH. Now, we may argue the timing of that war, and the nature of it, but the time will surely come. And Zechariah ties that time with "And they will look upon me whom they have pierced"... So it is not hard to understand just who it is that goes before Israel in the clouds as of old during that battle... This IS confusing, however - and most folks would say this points to the battle being the Battle of Armageddon, simply BECAUSE Yeshua is revealed - I don't think that is necessarily true.

Why most folks cannot look at it that way is because of a supposed traditional prohibition of Christ coming back at all, other than at the end of time. I don't think He is restricted, except in the ways He pronounced upon Himself. After all, He seems to have taught Paul personally in the desert for 3 years... We ASSUME that was in vision, but that is not said. No doubt His coming in glory, and setting His foot on the Mount of Olives is the appearance that dwarfs any other, but that moment does not have to be the moment He reveals Himself to Israel. I think that YHWH is revealed to the nations BEFORE the bitter end - There is a time when the nations groan in fear when they find out that YHWH LIVES - That cannot be @Armageddon, because there simply isn't any time for it - From the time Christ is revealed there, He enters the Temple through the East Gate, and proceeds immediately to meet His foe... and that is the end of it all right there. So when is this time when the nations KNOW and tremble? I think YHWH will make Himself unequivocally known before the finale - That Yeshua will be made known to Israel before then too, and that is probably going to be the same event.

I struggle with the idea that Israel is left out of the Rapture - Left out of the Bride. It doesn't make sense to me that He would come for His People, and that would not include the physical essence of 'His People' on the earth, and the hallmark promises He has made to them. This, finally, is antisemitism and Replacement Theology all the way to the bitter end. That is what drives me to look at the prophecy somewhat differently than my dispensational brethren.

If we consider the prophetic character of history in scripture, perhaps we should be looking for an event like Joseph reveling himself to his brothers.

It is interesting that you would bring that up, because there certainly is a tie-in: A 'well with no water' is used only in the story of Joseph, and in the capture of Judah and Ephraim during an end times war... It is an interesting tidbit, and it makes me wonder what meaning is there.

The details argue against a mid-tribulation rapture.

In the clinical sense, according to accepted tradition, you are correct. But as I have declared upthread, my view of the tribulation is not conventional.

95
posted on 05/04/2012 2:20:56 PM PDT
by roamer_1
(Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)

[roamer_1:]As to the 144000, That is PRECISELY the point - to open people's eyes... and there are MANY church-type folks who are currently blind as bats, perhaps myself included.

But they are drawn from the 12 tribes of Israel. They are going to be understood by a Jewish audience.

I cannot agree with that. They are Hebrew, not specifically Jewish. Of the 12 tribes, 10 are wholly lost - What are they now to the Jew (Judah)? No, I think that the 144000 will be for the whole of humanity - It is all of humanity that is getting that final notice, and the tribulation saints will come from all the nations. I continue to reiterate that if one does not understand the distinct difference drawn between the House of Israel (Ephraim) and the House of Judah (Judah, Jews), one cannot understand the Prophecy at all.

96
posted on 05/04/2012 2:48:43 PM PDT
by roamer_1
(Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)

But as I have declared upthread, my view of the tribulation is not conventional.

I dont mind unconventional, scripture is full of undiscovered treasure. Note that Joseph sent the gentiles out before he reveled himself first to his brothers. After he noted that there were still five years left of the famine.

1 Cor 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

"BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; 9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11 "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, `KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." (Hebrews 8:1-13)

Which exact words in that Scripture that God gave us are lies?

98
posted on 05/05/2012 3:51:10 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

Can you give me the Scripture where God says that He has cancelled any of His promises to the Jews?

Leave out the Scriptures about salvation, we all know about those.

I'll need the exact, word-for-word Scripture passages that replacement theologists use to deny the other Scriptures where God makes eternal promises to the Jewish people.

Now, if you can't find that Scripture, I'll need an explanation of where exactly replacement theology came from and what Scripture is used by replacement theologists to justify the belief that God has lied to His covenant, chosen people.

99
posted on 05/05/2012 3:54:38 AM PDT
by GiovannaNicoletta
("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))

Can you give me the Scripture where God says that He has cancelled any of His promisses to the Jews?

That bit of rhetoric is important to you, isn't it?

What does the New Testament say about the land promise that you dispensationalists obsess about?

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

"Heir of the world"? Where did Paul get that? Hmmmm.

And see also

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.*

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

For they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Hmmmm.

Leave out the Scriptures about salvation, we all know about those.

I'm not sure we all do. Maybe we should go over Acts 2:39.

I'll need the exact, word-for-word Scripture passagess that replacement theologists use to deny the other Scriptures where God makes eternal promises to the Jewish people.

Now, if you can't find that Scripture, I'll need an explanation of where exactly replacement theology came from and what Scripture is used by replacement theologistss to justify the belief that God has lied to His covenant, chosen people.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.